RE: IPLS

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Adrian,
Lots of thanks for a clarification. 
Just to make it clear - I do not have any technical issues with the IPLS draft.
Publishing it as a Historic RFC in order " to document ideas that were  considered and discarded"  sounds quite reasonable to me.

Regards,
       Sasha 
Email: [e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:10 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein; 'Loa Andersson'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: IPLS
> 
> Sasha,
> 
> Just an update...
> 
> The IESG is in the process of updating its statement on "Designating RFCs as
> Historic". It includes the following text:
> 
>    An RFC may be published directly as Historic, with no earlier status to
> change
>    (see, for example, RFC 4870). This is usually done to document ideas that
> were
>    considered and discarded, or protocols that were already historic when it
> was
>    decided to document them. Those publications are handled as are any
> other
>    RFCs.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: L2vpn [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexander
> > Vainshtein
> > Sent: 14 July 2014 14:15
> > To: Loa Andersson
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: IPLS
> >
> > Loa,
> > Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
> >
> > I agree that making a document permanently available  (for some degree
> > of
> > permanence:-) is a valid reason for publishing it as a Historic RFC.
> >
> > Regards,
> >        Sasha
> > Email: [e-mail]
> > Mobile: [phone]
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:08 PM
> > > To: Alexander Vainshtein; Giles Heron
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: IPLS
> > >
> > > Sasha,
> > >
> > > hmmm - the MPLS wg pubished RFC 6348, that is a requirement
> > > document, so in itself it has not been implemented or deployed; even
> > > if you can problably make the argument that specification fulfilling
> > > the requirements has.
> > >
> > > I think that making a document is because we want it to available in
> > > the future.
> > >
> > > /Loa
> > >
> > > On 2014-07-14 14:27, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> > > > Hi Giles,
> > > > Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
> > > >
> > > > I have always thought that Historic RFCs describe something that
> > > > has been
> > > implemented and deployed, but new standards are now in force.
> > > > E.g., original Martini drafts (which definitely have been
> > > > implemented and
> > > deployed)  have been published as Historic RFCs.
> > > >
> > > > For the sake of curiosity, is this the case with IPLS?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >         Sasha
> > > > Email: [e-mail]
> > > > Mobile: [phone]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Giles Heron [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:10 PM
> > > >> To: Alexander Vainshtein
> > > >> Cc: [e-mail]
> > > >> Subject: Re: IPLS
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Sasha,
> > > >>
> > > >> yes - I believe that's the plan.
> > > >>
> > > >> Giles
> > > >>
> > > >> On 14 Jul 2014, at 13:09, Alexander Vainshtein
> > > >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Giles,
> > > >>> Do you intend to progress it directly to Historic RFC?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>>        Sasha
> > > >>> Email: [e-mail]
> > > >>> Mobile: [phone]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>> From: L2vpn [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Giles
> > > >>>> Heron
> > > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:08 PM
> > > >>>> To: [e-mail]
> > > >>>> Subject: IPLS
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> the IPLS draft (probably the oldest draft ever to attempt to
> > > >>>> progress to RFC) was recently re-published as "historic" rather
> > > >>>> than
> > > >> "informational":
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> To that end the IANA assignments requested in the draft were
> > > >>>> also withdrawn - though they could be re-instated if the draft
> > > >>>> were ever to progress.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Based on these changes we now intend to progress this draft to
> RFC.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Giles
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> > > Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> > > Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]